![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I'm afraid I don't have time to edit this article myself, but I tagged the "Misconceptions" section for POV. It is not only vague and unsourced, but to say that statement analysis is not interpretation is pure linguistic poppycock. David L Rattigan ( talk) 17:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I've no idea how do do this but I think this article absolutely should be deleted, it is really terrible. My guess is this is a complete pseudoscience, and maybe a smaller article breifly describing what SA claims to do along with some criticism would be appropriate. Liam1564 ( talk) 00:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This page reads like a paraphrase from Mark McClish's "Statement Analysis" web site. There is no pro or con information provided in the article. Troublingly, McClish's web site only has cases that show people are guilty. Why are there no cases that show people are not guilty? The thing seems a lot like voodoo.
Statement Analysis is a passive investigative technique. In the application of All DOD techniques or technologies, the reality is that some 95% of subjects being 'tested' are innocent, or Not Deceptive. i.e Truthful. But the stories about people 'passing' these tests does not make for good reading. (ie boring) That is why the public generally only get to hear stories about the few (5%) failures.
Statement Analysis is certainly not voodoo. It is far more accurate than polygraph or cvsa. Statement Analysts (examiners) obtain far more confessions than do examiners using only hardware.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, there are no 'cons'. A person is either telling the truth, or they aren't.
Ctka 16:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Ctka
Avinoam Sapir (whom by now probably has PhD's in both psychology and criminology)refined the SVA techniques some 20 years ago. *** —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ctka (
talk •
contribs) 14:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is covering the same topic as
Statement veracity analysis. Both articles are, in my view, poor. Poorly referenced, poorly written, not wikified, etc. But this article looks more wikified. I've stuck a merger proposal on both pages.
Petemyers (
talk) 00:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed most of the article as it was nothing more than an advertisement for a procedure being sold to police departments stating all their claims about how awesome it is and using only its proponents as sources for anything. That violated WP:NPOV policy in a major way. I changed some of the wording and listed two sources that call it pseudoscience. If we could find reliable sources about the topic and present more information in a fair way instead of just reciting everything the people who created it say it can do then we can expand the article again. Based upon looking around some, however, I doubt expansion is likely, as there just isn't too many neutral sources paying any attention to this. DreamGuy ( talk) 17:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for working on statement analysis. I was the one who originally created the talk page and likened statement analysis to voodoo and criticized that it seemed like a paraphrase of McClish's web site. I don't have a dog in this race and am neither for nor against statement analysis. However, I think the article was in pretty good shape as the result of a bunch of edits various users made from the time I started the talk page and I think you and another user have taken too much out of the article. Over a period of years, those editors added a lot of sourcing and examples and deleted most of the promotional material McClish or one of his boosters added to the article. I agree that more sourcing for the reliability of statement analysis is necessary and that the article should have more anti-statement analysis sources. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Any tool that is widely used in law enforcement and can allow trained investigators to ACCURATELY spot WITHIN SECONDS (for example) that the Jon-Benet ransom note was fraudulent or that Susan Smith knew her kids were dead must have some merit to it. My main concern is that all of the cases presented on both McClish's web site and Sapir's web site show that people are guilty. If statement analysis is only used to gather incriminating evidence and never exculpatory evidence then that is a problem with it. I also question whether that source added recently -- Skeptics -- is a reliable one. There must be something critical written about statement analysis and CBCA in the scientific literature that would be more worthy. 18.171.0.233 ( talk) 19:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Very long literature list
|
---|
Cues to Deception and Ability to Detect Lies as a Function of Police Interview Styles Aldert Vrij, Samantha Mann, Susanne Kristen and Ronald P. Fisher Law and Human Behavior Vol. 31, No. 5 (Oct., 2007), pp. 499-518 Can Criteria-Based Content Analysis Distinguish between True and False Statements of African-American Speakers? Charles L. Ruby, John C. Brigham Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Aug., 1998), pp. 369-388 Child Sexual Abuse Allegations: Reliability of Criteria-Based Content Analysis David A. Anson, Stephen L. Golding, Kevin J. Gully Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Jun., 1993), pp. 331-341 The Language of Deceit: An Investigation of the Verbal Clues to Deception in the Interrogation Context Stephen Porter, John C. Yuille Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Aug., 1996), pp. 443-458 Will the Truth Come out? The Effect of Deception, Age, Status, Coaching, and Social Skills on CBCA Scores Aldert Vrij, Lucy Akehurst, Stavroula Soukara, Ray Bull Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Jun., 2002), pp. 261-283 Detecting Deception in Children: An Experimental Study of the Effect of Event Familiarity on CBCA Ratings Iris Blandon-Gitlin, Kathy Pezdek, Martha Rogers, Laura Brodie Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), pp. 187-197 Huffman,M . L. & Ceci, S. J. (1997). Can Criteria-Based Content Analysis discriminate true and false reports of preschoolers? An exploratory analysis. Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Murray, J. J. (1983). The detection of interviewers; verbal deception from their accompanying overt nonverbal behavior. Unpublished dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida. Porter, S ., & Yuille, J . D. (1995). Credibility assessment of criminal suspects through statement analysis. Psychology, Crime and Law, 1, 1-13. Raskin, D . C., & Esplin, P . W. (1991). Statement validity assessment: Interview procedures and content analysis of children's statements of sexual abuse. Behavioral Assessment, 13, 265-291. Ruby, C. L., & Brigham, J . C. (1997). The usefulness of the criteria-based content analysis technique in distinguishing between truthful and fabricated allegations:A critical review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 3, 705-737. Steller, M . (1989). Recent developments in statement analysis. In J. C. Yuille( Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 135-154). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Steller,M ., Wellershaus, P, & Wolf,T (1988,J une).E mpirical validationo f criteria-basedco ntenta nalysis. Paperp resenteda t the NATOA dvancedS tudyI nstituteo n CredibilityA ssessment,M aratea,I taly. Undeutsch,U . (1982). Statementr ealitya nalysis.I n A. Trankell( Ed.), Reconstructingth e past: The role of psychologistsin criminalt rials( pp. 27-56). Stockholm:N orstedta nd Sons. Yuille, J. C. (1990). Use of criteria-basedco ntenta nalysis.U npublishedp aper, Universityo f BritishC o-lumbia,V ancouver, BritishC olumbia,C anada.. Zapamik,J ., Yuille, J. C., & Taylor,S . (1995). Assessingt he credibilityo f true and false statements. InternationalJo urnalo f Law and Psychiatry,18 , 343-352. Bond, G. D., & Lee, A. Y. (2005). Language of lies in prison: Linguistic classification of prisoners' truthful and deceptive natural language. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 313-329. Colwell, K., Hiscock, C. K., & Menon, A. (2002). Interviewing techniques and the assessment of statement credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 287-300. DePaulo, B. M. (1994). Spotting lies: Can humans learn to do better? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 83-86. DePaulo, B. M., Charlton, K., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. L., & Muhlenbruck, L. (1997). The accuracy - confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 346-357. DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. L., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-118. Gddert, H. W., Gamer, M., Rill, H. G., & Vossel, G. (2005). Statement validity assessment: Inter-rater reliability of criteria-based content analysis in the mock-crime paradigm. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 225-245. Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. Chichester: Wiley. Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A., Strömwall, L.A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Law and Human Behaviour, 29, 469-484. Hernandez-Fernaud, E., & Alonso-Quecuty, M. (1997). The cognitive interview and lie detection: A new magni- fying glass for Sherlock Holmes? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 55-68. Horvath, F., Jayne, B., & Buckley, J. (1994). Differentiation of truthful and deceptive criminal suspects in behaviour analysis interviews. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 39, 793-807. Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality Monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67-85. Kassin, S. M., & Fong, C. T. (1999). "I'm innocent!": Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 499-516. Köhnken, G. (2004). Statement Validity Analysis and the "detection of the truth". In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 41-63). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Levine, T. R., & McCornack, S. A. (1992). Linking love and lies: A formal test of the McCornack and Parks model of deception detection. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 143-154. Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers' ability to detect deceit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137-149. Masip, J., Sporer, S. L., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2005). The detection of deception with the Reality Monitoring approach: A review of the empirical evidence. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 11, 99-122. Moston, S. J., & Engelberg, T. (1993). Police questioning techniques in tape recorded interviews with criminal suspects. Policing and Society, 6, 61-75. Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. N. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665-675. Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC): LIWC 2001 manual. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Raskin, D. C., & P. W. Esplin (1991). Statement Validity Assessment: Interview procedures and content analysis of children's statements of sexual abuse. Behavioral Assessment, 13, 265-291. Sporer, S. L. (1997). The less traveled road to truth: Verbal cues in deception detection in accounts of fabricated and self-experienced events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 373-397. Vrij, A. (2005b). Criteria-Based Content Analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 3-41. Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2004b). Let me inform you how to tell a convincing story: CBCA and Reality Monitoring scores as a function of age, coaching and deception. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science (special issue on Forensic Psychology), 36, 113-126. |
76.24.237.160 ( talk) 05:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
This article needs a whole bunch of work. For one thing, statement analysis and statement validity analysis are two different things, and CBCA is something else different. I am going to start by adding a criticism section, which is long overdue from the article. All that is in there right now is a dismissive claim of "pseudoscience" by a magazine. I am going to add some specific criticism by one of the scientists who's studied these types of analysis most. Shamrockshake ( talk) 01:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know where else to request a page, but I would like to see one on the inventor of Statement Analysis. Is he related to the famous linguist Edward Sapir? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.133.22 ( talk) 16:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I'm afraid I don't have time to edit this article myself, but I tagged the "Misconceptions" section for POV. It is not only vague and unsourced, but to say that statement analysis is not interpretation is pure linguistic poppycock. David L Rattigan ( talk) 17:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I've no idea how do do this but I think this article absolutely should be deleted, it is really terrible. My guess is this is a complete pseudoscience, and maybe a smaller article breifly describing what SA claims to do along with some criticism would be appropriate. Liam1564 ( talk) 00:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This page reads like a paraphrase from Mark McClish's "Statement Analysis" web site. There is no pro or con information provided in the article. Troublingly, McClish's web site only has cases that show people are guilty. Why are there no cases that show people are not guilty? The thing seems a lot like voodoo.
Statement Analysis is a passive investigative technique. In the application of All DOD techniques or technologies, the reality is that some 95% of subjects being 'tested' are innocent, or Not Deceptive. i.e Truthful. But the stories about people 'passing' these tests does not make for good reading. (ie boring) That is why the public generally only get to hear stories about the few (5%) failures.
Statement Analysis is certainly not voodoo. It is far more accurate than polygraph or cvsa. Statement Analysts (examiners) obtain far more confessions than do examiners using only hardware.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, there are no 'cons'. A person is either telling the truth, or they aren't.
Ctka 16:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Ctka
Avinoam Sapir (whom by now probably has PhD's in both psychology and criminology)refined the SVA techniques some 20 years ago. *** —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ctka (
talk •
contribs) 14:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is covering the same topic as
Statement veracity analysis. Both articles are, in my view, poor. Poorly referenced, poorly written, not wikified, etc. But this article looks more wikified. I've stuck a merger proposal on both pages.
Petemyers (
talk) 00:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed most of the article as it was nothing more than an advertisement for a procedure being sold to police departments stating all their claims about how awesome it is and using only its proponents as sources for anything. That violated WP:NPOV policy in a major way. I changed some of the wording and listed two sources that call it pseudoscience. If we could find reliable sources about the topic and present more information in a fair way instead of just reciting everything the people who created it say it can do then we can expand the article again. Based upon looking around some, however, I doubt expansion is likely, as there just isn't too many neutral sources paying any attention to this. DreamGuy ( talk) 17:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for working on statement analysis. I was the one who originally created the talk page and likened statement analysis to voodoo and criticized that it seemed like a paraphrase of McClish's web site. I don't have a dog in this race and am neither for nor against statement analysis. However, I think the article was in pretty good shape as the result of a bunch of edits various users made from the time I started the talk page and I think you and another user have taken too much out of the article. Over a period of years, those editors added a lot of sourcing and examples and deleted most of the promotional material McClish or one of his boosters added to the article. I agree that more sourcing for the reliability of statement analysis is necessary and that the article should have more anti-statement analysis sources. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Any tool that is widely used in law enforcement and can allow trained investigators to ACCURATELY spot WITHIN SECONDS (for example) that the Jon-Benet ransom note was fraudulent or that Susan Smith knew her kids were dead must have some merit to it. My main concern is that all of the cases presented on both McClish's web site and Sapir's web site show that people are guilty. If statement analysis is only used to gather incriminating evidence and never exculpatory evidence then that is a problem with it. I also question whether that source added recently -- Skeptics -- is a reliable one. There must be something critical written about statement analysis and CBCA in the scientific literature that would be more worthy. 18.171.0.233 ( talk) 19:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Very long literature list
|
---|
Cues to Deception and Ability to Detect Lies as a Function of Police Interview Styles Aldert Vrij, Samantha Mann, Susanne Kristen and Ronald P. Fisher Law and Human Behavior Vol. 31, No. 5 (Oct., 2007), pp. 499-518 Can Criteria-Based Content Analysis Distinguish between True and False Statements of African-American Speakers? Charles L. Ruby, John C. Brigham Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Aug., 1998), pp. 369-388 Child Sexual Abuse Allegations: Reliability of Criteria-Based Content Analysis David A. Anson, Stephen L. Golding, Kevin J. Gully Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Jun., 1993), pp. 331-341 The Language of Deceit: An Investigation of the Verbal Clues to Deception in the Interrogation Context Stephen Porter, John C. Yuille Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Aug., 1996), pp. 443-458 Will the Truth Come out? The Effect of Deception, Age, Status, Coaching, and Social Skills on CBCA Scores Aldert Vrij, Lucy Akehurst, Stavroula Soukara, Ray Bull Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Jun., 2002), pp. 261-283 Detecting Deception in Children: An Experimental Study of the Effect of Event Familiarity on CBCA Ratings Iris Blandon-Gitlin, Kathy Pezdek, Martha Rogers, Laura Brodie Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), pp. 187-197 Huffman,M . L. & Ceci, S. J. (1997). Can Criteria-Based Content Analysis discriminate true and false reports of preschoolers? An exploratory analysis. Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Murray, J. J. (1983). The detection of interviewers; verbal deception from their accompanying overt nonverbal behavior. Unpublished dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida. Porter, S ., & Yuille, J . D. (1995). Credibility assessment of criminal suspects through statement analysis. Psychology, Crime and Law, 1, 1-13. Raskin, D . C., & Esplin, P . W. (1991). Statement validity assessment: Interview procedures and content analysis of children's statements of sexual abuse. Behavioral Assessment, 13, 265-291. Ruby, C. L., & Brigham, J . C. (1997). The usefulness of the criteria-based content analysis technique in distinguishing between truthful and fabricated allegations:A critical review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 3, 705-737. Steller, M . (1989). Recent developments in statement analysis. In J. C. Yuille( Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 135-154). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Steller,M ., Wellershaus, P, & Wolf,T (1988,J une).E mpirical validationo f criteria-basedco ntenta nalysis. Paperp resenteda t the NATOA dvancedS tudyI nstituteo n CredibilityA ssessment,M aratea,I taly. Undeutsch,U . (1982). Statementr ealitya nalysis.I n A. Trankell( Ed.), Reconstructingth e past: The role of psychologistsin criminalt rials( pp. 27-56). Stockholm:N orstedta nd Sons. Yuille, J. C. (1990). Use of criteria-basedco ntenta nalysis.U npublishedp aper, Universityo f BritishC o-lumbia,V ancouver, BritishC olumbia,C anada.. Zapamik,J ., Yuille, J. C., & Taylor,S . (1995). Assessingt he credibilityo f true and false statements. InternationalJo urnalo f Law and Psychiatry,18 , 343-352. Bond, G. D., & Lee, A. Y. (2005). Language of lies in prison: Linguistic classification of prisoners' truthful and deceptive natural language. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 313-329. Colwell, K., Hiscock, C. K., & Menon, A. (2002). Interviewing techniques and the assessment of statement credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 287-300. DePaulo, B. M. (1994). Spotting lies: Can humans learn to do better? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 83-86. DePaulo, B. M., Charlton, K., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. L., & Muhlenbruck, L. (1997). The accuracy - confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 346-357. DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. L., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-118. Gddert, H. W., Gamer, M., Rill, H. G., & Vossel, G. (2005). Statement validity assessment: Inter-rater reliability of criteria-based content analysis in the mock-crime paradigm. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 225-245. Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. Chichester: Wiley. Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A., Strömwall, L.A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Law and Human Behaviour, 29, 469-484. Hernandez-Fernaud, E., & Alonso-Quecuty, M. (1997). The cognitive interview and lie detection: A new magni- fying glass for Sherlock Holmes? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 55-68. Horvath, F., Jayne, B., & Buckley, J. (1994). Differentiation of truthful and deceptive criminal suspects in behaviour analysis interviews. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 39, 793-807. Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality Monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67-85. Kassin, S. M., & Fong, C. T. (1999). "I'm innocent!": Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 499-516. Köhnken, G. (2004). Statement Validity Analysis and the "detection of the truth". In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 41-63). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Levine, T. R., & McCornack, S. A. (1992). Linking love and lies: A formal test of the McCornack and Parks model of deception detection. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 143-154. Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers' ability to detect deceit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137-149. Masip, J., Sporer, S. L., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2005). The detection of deception with the Reality Monitoring approach: A review of the empirical evidence. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 11, 99-122. Moston, S. J., & Engelberg, T. (1993). Police questioning techniques in tape recorded interviews with criminal suspects. Policing and Society, 6, 61-75. Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. N. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665-675. Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC): LIWC 2001 manual. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Raskin, D. C., & P. W. Esplin (1991). Statement Validity Assessment: Interview procedures and content analysis of children's statements of sexual abuse. Behavioral Assessment, 13, 265-291. Sporer, S. L. (1997). The less traveled road to truth: Verbal cues in deception detection in accounts of fabricated and self-experienced events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 373-397. Vrij, A. (2005b). Criteria-Based Content Analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 3-41. Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2004b). Let me inform you how to tell a convincing story: CBCA and Reality Monitoring scores as a function of age, coaching and deception. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science (special issue on Forensic Psychology), 36, 113-126. |
76.24.237.160 ( talk) 05:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
This article needs a whole bunch of work. For one thing, statement analysis and statement validity analysis are two different things, and CBCA is something else different. I am going to start by adding a criticism section, which is long overdue from the article. All that is in there right now is a dismissive claim of "pseudoscience" by a magazine. I am going to add some specific criticism by one of the scientists who's studied these types of analysis most. Shamrockshake ( talk) 01:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know where else to request a page, but I would like to see one on the inventor of Statement Analysis. Is he related to the famous linguist Edward Sapir? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.133.22 ( talk) 16:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)